> > Therefore, I propose the following: > > (1) Andrew's decision stands. Under RFC 3777, the only recourse > available > to anyone who disagrees with that decision would be to ask Andrew to > reconsider or to file a dispute with the ISOC President. The former > has already been done, and so far no reversal has been announced. > Given that it is now after the close of trading on August 31, I would > submit that a reversal of this decision by either Andrew or Lynn would > do more harm than good. > > (2) Text is added to the next version of the selection process to > addresss > this issue. I would suggest a strengthening of the existing language > about leaving questionable candidates in the list and rejecting them > in a later pass. In fact, it might be wiser to require the use of the > original list of volunteers as given to the secretariat and _always_ > rejecting ineligible candidates in a later pass. This would remove > any need to insure that errors or disputes about eligibility be > resolved before the random data becomes available. Jeff, I agree that this is the best course of action. I would also like to express my full support for Andrew's decisions. Due to unfortunate circumstances, he got into an unanticipated situation. He's being critized for the decision to re-run the selection; but given that we had several, not just one problem (timing and ineligible members) the other options would also have been problematic. Not an easy position to be in! --Jari _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf